Going back to the original question, the next buzzword after Ajax looks like being 'Web 2.0'. Like Ajax, Web 2.0 is a way of doing things rather than a new technology per se, this time combining Ajax client features with SOA-style architectures to create web-based service networks that interact with each other much more closely than traditional web sites do. Google Maps is a good example here - now that the API is opened up, I've seen it popping up in various other places, such as in the context-sensitive highlighting in the Zimbra collaboratation suite's mail messages. A key rule of success of old-style web sites was to get as many eyeballs as possible to your site. Ajax allows us to change that rule to 'as many eyeballs to your widget', which may well be hosted inside someone else's site or app.

The whole widget thing is interesting - Yahoo/Konfabulator, Mac OSX Dashboards, Vista Gadgets - blurring the line a bit further between desktop apps and web apps. So yes, Microsoft will be in there along with everyone else, looking to corner the emerging market.

Of course, as a crystal-ball gazer here, I could be talking complete fluff! I reserve the right to be comletely wrong about this, but that's where I see things heading right now.

Since AJAX is a term for a methodology rather than a specific product or technology, I'd say it depends on how you are using the iframes. If you are using them as scollable areas of a web page, perhaps not. If you are using them to make behind-the-scenes requests, then I'd say yes.

If someone wanted to get very technical about it, they could say that I've never used AJAX because I've never used it to return XML. So, they could say that all I've used is AJA, perhaps.

I'd say it's a silly distinction, but I also think that the term AJAX to describe the technology is pretty silly (for that very reason), but one that we're stuck with.

Microsoft invented the XMLHttpRequest object into its browser first....

True. You can tell, cause any of the aforementioned companies would have had the decency to pass an event object passed into the onreadystatechanged handler, rather than to assume (force) you (to) keep everything in global scope like a VB programmer .

SCJP 1.4, SCJD 1.4, SCWCD 1.3, ICSD:Websphere 5.1

Eric Pascarello
author
Rancher

Joined: Nov 08, 2001
Posts: 15385

6

posted Nov 15, 2005 07:11:00

0

Originally posted by Barend Garvelink:

True. You can tell, cause any of the aforementioned companies would have had the decency to pass an event object passed into the onreadystatechanged handler, rather than to assume (force) you (to) keep everything in global scope like a VB programmer .

Sad thing is if you were to program in an object oriented way with JavaScript, you would not have any problem dealing with it! Look at the refactored code in Ajax IN Action and you will see how easy it is to handle this situation.

Eric

Barend Garvelink
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 07, 2004
Posts: 64

posted Nov 15, 2005 07:39:00

0

Sad thing is if you were to program in an object oriented way with JavaScript, you would not have any problem dealing with it! Look at the refactored code in Ajax IN Action and you will see how easy it is to handle this situation.

I have several years experience writing Object-Oriented Javascript, thank you very much. I'm well aware that the problems are solvable and have in fact done so in various different applications. Multiple XmlHttpRequests firing at once, all guarded by timeout checks and all properly updating the HTML DOM as their results are in. All of it hand-crafted Javascript, not a line of borrowed code or framework code.

My point was that the XmlHttpRequest API is kind of poor. It's a nice thing to have, especially now that it's been standardised across browsers, but the API -and the onreadystatechange method in particular- could have been better.

I'd say it's a silly distinction, but I also think that the term AJAX to describe the technology is pretty silly (for that very reason), but one that we're stuck with.

I think it having a name (no matter how absurd the name) that is widely accepted is a good thing. Microsoft introduced this years ago as "Remote Scripting" and then backed away from it in their push to get "Windows Forms Controls" in the browser rolling. All browser makers will be more likely to support it and support it in a consistent matter if the question can be put as "Does it support AJAX or not?".

It having a name and the fact that books have been written on the subject will also make it easier to sell to management and/or clients.

I've used hidden iframes for years and have often wondered if the rug was going to be pulled out from under my apps in the next release of MSIE or Firefox. Seeing the concept named, written about, and used by the likes of Google makes me a lot more comfortable relying on it in large projects.

I certainly can't tell the future but I think we are going to see richer and fuller web applications. Some people don't like the Web 2.0 moniker (like Joel on Software - Architecture Astronauts Are Back) but we are seeing a shift here towards a more participation based approach. I just hope companies keep allowing the mashups � who knows what new innovation we�ll see rising out of that space.